|
Publication Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 LETTERS
LETTERS
(December 21, 2005)
Generous trail offer from Stanford
Editor:
Thanks to Stanford's generosity, San Mateo County now has an opportunity to build an environmentally responsible walking and biking trail connecting the Sand Hill Road trail to the Arastradero Reserve.
I urge my county supervisors to take the $8 million-plus offered by Stanford to improve the existing Alpine Road trail from Sand Hill Road to Portola Valley. I hope Portola Valley will build its portion, too.
Santa Clara County has validated the university's compliance with its general use permit, placing connector trails as shown in the regional trails master plan. The Alpine Road trail will require no tax dollars from us. And if San Mateo County turns it down, we will be handing the $8 million to another county, with no influence over its use.
Our county has the option to build a 12-foot trail, a 3-foot trail, or anything in between. The trail can detour around trees. It can be landscaped or not, asphalt or dirt or tanbark. Stanford has offered the county enough money to build a lavish, safe trail and even to move Alpine Road if necessary to protect Weekend Acres. (Some of its residents' NIMBYism has plumbed new depths.)
Construction has been delayed for five years by political opportunists who want to score points by making unreasonable demands of the university. The anti-Stanford claque has co-opted the name "environmentalist," but they clamor for unlimited public access to sensitive open space. Hikers who want to see the trails master plan completed in our lifetime say it's time to get moving.
Kathleen Much
Hillside Avenue, Menlo Park
Stanford traded easements for right to build
Editor:
In 2000, Stanford was granted enormous and valuable development rights.
With community input, Santa Clara County and Stanford agreed that the required mitigation included "a trail near San Francisquito Creek on Stanford's lands in Santa Clara County." The general use permit exchanges developmental rights for trail easements on Stanford's land. Obviously, a trail easement on Stanford's land is very valuable. This is what the community is owed to balance the impact of such extensive development.
It appears that the Santa Clara County never calculated the value of the promised trail easement -- what Stanford has agreed to give the community. The dollar value of a trail easement on Stanford's lands is worth many millions of dollars -- and that is what is due to the community.
Pushing the trail into San Mateo County does not transfer the dollar value of a Stanford trail easement to the community. Instead, it robs the community of a valuable amenity, without substituting another amenity of equal value.
It doesn't matter how much money Stanford is willing to spend to build the trail out of county -- by letting Stanford push the trail off its land, the agreement would deprive Santa Clara County residents of the full value of the mitigation they are owed. There is no compensation in the agreement to return that value to residents in any other form within the county.
If Stanford is going to buy its way out of this commitment, the cost must be based on the value of the easement, not the cost of the pavement.
Carol Espinosa
Los Altos
Opposed to having Stanford provide trails
Editor:
I am opposed to Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss' absurd contention that Stanford should be required to provide interior trails as a condition of approval for its development plan.
As everyone knows, environmental groups such as the Committee for Green Foothills and Acterra have been pushing for this route rather than trails located on the perimeter of Stanford's lands as a means of creating public easements within the university that would effectively preclude development.
Property rights still have meaning, especially those of our neighbor Stanford, whose status as a world class center of learning depends upon its ability to grow.
Leon G. Campbell
Homer Avenue, Palo Alto
Happy to see eucalyptus trees gone
Editor:
Whenever I drive down Portola Road I think about how nice it is that those giant eucalyptus trees have finally come down.
They are a non-native species, fire hazard, and grow more costly to remove by the year. I think that the property owner must be very enlightened to finally get rid of these alien invaders.
That is why I could not believe the flap over the trees described in the Almanac December 7. Do the vocal Woodside residents have no sense of fire risk mitigation or environmental balance. All I know is that the cost to remove the trees grows every year and property owners should be applauded for removing eucalyptus.
Stefan Unnasch
Portola Road, Portola Valley
Fergusson, supporters sowing conflict again
Editor:
Menlo Park is fortunate to have Nicholas Jellins once again in the mayor's chair. The leadership skills that he has demonstrated during his seven years on the council will serve the city well during a year that will see continuing budget challenges.
It is sad, however, that Mayor Pro Tempore Kelly Fergusson and her supporters have chosen to use the selection of the mayor as yet another excuse to abuse her fellow council members.
A non-binding 1993 Council policy, with a goal of encouraging rotation of the mayoral appointment, is a great idea when it results in each council member getting to serve as mayor sometime during (his or her) four-year term.
While Ms. Fergusson still has the opportunity to be selected mayor in the remaining three years of her term, this goal was cast aside by one previous council.
In 1997, Bernie Nevin was denied the mayor's seat by the residentialist majority of that council in the final year of her term, ensuring that she never had the opportunity to serve as mayor. Now we have residentialist former council members, Fergusson supporters all, hypocritically slamming the current council for making Ms. Fergusson wait a year before becoming mayor.
The city would be better served if Ms. Fergusson and her allies cut out the constant attacks on her council colleagues, and instead concentrated on solving the city's important problems.
Frank Tucker
Politzer Drive, Menlo Park
Model railroaders had a good turnout
Editor:
Thanks to the Almanac for the publicity helping the West Bay Model Railroad Association enjoy a good crowd at our annual Christmas Show. The article was a major factor in informing people of our open houses.
We had a packed house on December 3 when Caltrains' "Toys for Tots" train came to Menlo Park and approximately 1,700 people attended during the three days of our Christmas Show. The photo of Nicole Harris and her baby daughter, Charlotte, watching the trains was priceless.
Thank you so very much for your support.
Lauren Mercer
Central Avenue, Menlo Park
Smoking chimneys can choke a neighborhood
Editor:
I feel sad and frustrated this time of year when the smell of wood smoke is in the air. Airplanes, restaurants, bars, and workplaces are now smoke-free but our homes and backyards and streets are often still filled with dangerous smoke from wood-burning fireplaces. Cigarette smoke is a known hazard, and so is wood smoke.
Exposure to wood smoke has been linked to lung disease, including asthma and cancer. More people die of lung cancer than of breast, colon, and prostate cancers combined. Asthma has reached pandemic proportions in many communities. Children and the elderly are the most susceptible to bad results from frequent exposure to wood smoke, but all of our lungs suffer. One smoky chimney can send an asthmatic running for an inhaler, air purifier, and additional medicine.
The Bay Area may have relatively clean air in general, but if you can smell smoke in the street or in your house, you are breathing highly polluted air that would rate in the "unhealthful" category. Wood-burning fireplaces contaminate the air inside our homes as well as outside, including the home that has the fire burning.
Is it legal to burn wood? Yes and no. Wood-burning fireplaces are already banned in new construction because of known dangers, but those who have them are still allowed to use them.
Is it considerate to burn wood and not care who has to breathe the resulting contamination? In my opinion, no. Talk to your neighbors and ask them to respect your right to breathe clean air. And feel very self-conscious and guilty if your smoking chimney is the one choking the whole neighborhood.
Maria Kleczewska
Marmona Drive, Menlo Park
E-mail a friend a link to this story. |
